Michigan

Miriam Idara Archibong, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent

Petitioner: Miriam Idara Archibong
Respondent: City Of Detroit

Case overview

Docket number: 25-003056-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Wayne
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
8	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	11/24/2025	Not recorded	Download
7	Notice of Filing	Not recorded	Not recorded	11/24/2025	Not recorded	Download
6	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	11/10/2025	Not recorded	Download
5	Order Extending P's Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/27/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Order of Default of Petitioner	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/02/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	10/02/2025	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number SC	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/02/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/31/2025	Not recorded	Download

Documents

25-003056 Dismiss (post-default).pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was placed in

default on October 2, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file the correct petition for the

issue under appeal and failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal. On

October 27, 2025, the Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by an

additional 14 days, and they have failed to respond. Petitioner has not complied with

either order, and the latter stated that “failure to comply with this Order may result in the

dismissal of the case . . .” and referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.1 In Grimm, the

Michigan Court of Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before

imposing the sanction of dismissal. Those factors are:

(1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of

refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the

opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the

degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to

cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the

interests of justice.2

Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with multiple orders has established a history of

deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and

considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal

finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate in

light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this case.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case.

1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003056 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: November 24, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SC-Notice_of_Filing_of_Answer.2025-11-24_14-16-26.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website.

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Users who file documents with the Michigan Tax Tribunal are advised that filed

documents are public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tax

Docket Lookup. Users who file documents are responsible for ensuring sensitive or

personal identifying information is withheld or redacted. See TTR 209. If a user wishes

to file a document for consideration by the Michigan Tax Tribunal and prevent its

publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for Protective Order

under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents covered by the

Order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a Protective Order

will be published.

The responsibility for excluding or redacting personal identifying information (PII) from

all documents filed with or offered to the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and

their attorneys. The Tribunal is not responsible for or required to review, redact, or

screen documents at the time of filing for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A

party, representative, or interested person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may

request that the Tribunal redact PII contained in a previously-filed document by

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

Page 2 of 6

submitting a Request for Redactions. The Request for Redactions form will be

available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages of our website.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

NOTE: The parties may not request an informal settlement conference to discuss an

appeal of a principal residence exemption that was denied by either the Michigan

Department of Treasury or a County. Also, state taxes levied by the Michigan

Department of Treasury, such as income taxes, are not subject to the informal

settlement conference process.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation.

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: November 24, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the 

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website. 

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small 

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will 

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email 

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of 

the date, time, and location of your

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

STAT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

25-003056.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED

NOV 1 2 2025

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

ORLENE HAWKS

GOVERNOR

LANSING

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-003056

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g.

Notice of Denial or Board of Review Decision) with this Smal Claims Answer, if applicable. If you do not submit this

document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Unit of Goverament

City of Detroit

Section 2: Respondent's Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

MI.

Last Name

Damon

DeShazer

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

2 Woodward Ave. Suite 804

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Detroit

48226

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter untess you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mall)

taxtribunal@detroitmi.gov

Section 3: Subject Property Information

Parcel Identification Number(s):

27250130 / 17009157

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining?

If not, list which parcels are adjoining (i.e. touch).

J ves

[J No

[A Not Applicable

Classification of Property:

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Timber-Cutover

Developmental

Utility

(check one)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

662 Van Dyke currently holds both the Principal Residence Exemption and the NEZ 

Homestead exemption. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

List the tax year(s) denied: 

n/a 

Check what action prompted this appeal: 

0 Notice of Denial of Principal Residence Exemption was Issued (} Denial by Board of Review 0 Denial by Dept. of Treasury 

[A other 

If you checked “other” above explain: 

PRE was not denied 

if Petitioner is appealing from a Board of Review denial, check which Board of Raview took action: 

[MW] March 

O July 

[i] December 

List the date the Principal Residence Exemption or Qualified Agricultural Exemption was denied: 

PRE was not denied 

Signature “required 

Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representalive’s Signature: 

Y 

Damen DeShagen

Page 3

Printed 

on 

10/29/2025 

Parcel Number: 

27250130. 

Jurisdiction: 

CITY 

OF DETROIT 

County: 

WAYNE 

Grantor 

Grantee 

Sale 

Sale 

Inst. 

{Terms 

of Sale 

Liber 

Verified 

Prent. 

Price 

Date 

Type 

& Page 

By 

Trans. 

A 

& 

L INVESTMENT GROUP 

LL 

|ARCHIBONG, 

MIRIAM 

396,000] 

03/12/2024 

WD 

03-ARM'S 

LENGTH 

2024092957 

PROPERTY 

TRANSFER: 

100.0 

Property Address 

Class: 

RESIDENTIAL-IMPRO 

|Zoning: 

R2 

Building 

Permit (s) 

Date 

Number 

Status 

662 VAN DYKE 

School: 

DETROIT CITY 

SCHOOL DISTRICT 

ALTERATION/RENOVATION 

12/10/2004 

[079869 

PERMIT COM 

P.R.E. 

50% 

06/06/2024 

OQuner's Name/Address 

WARDE: 

37 

ARCHIBONG, MIRIAM 

2026 Est ICV 298,721 TCV/TFA: 100.11 

666 VAN DYKE 

, 

DETROIT MI 

48226 

% [Improved 

I 

[vacant 

Land Value Estimates 

for Land Table 

Public 

* 

Factors 

* 

Improvements 

Description 

Frontage 

Depth 

Front 

Depth 

Rate 

$Adj. 

Reason 

Value 

- 

re 

Dirt Road 

40.00 110.00 1.0000 0.0000 

0 

100% 

} 

0 

Taz Description 

Gravel Road 

* denotes lines that do not contribute to the total acreage calculation. 

E VAN DYKE 

19 PARKERS RE SUB L21 P99 

X 

paved Road 

40 Actual Front Feet, 

0.00 Total Acres 

Total Est. Land Value 

= 

0 

PLATS, 

W 

C R 17/16 

40 

X 110 

% 

|Storm Sewer 

: 

Comments/Influences 

i 

> 

x 

Sidewalk 

Land Improvement 

Cost Estimates 

7/9/25-~ 

FIELD REVIEW, 

SCHEDULED 

TO 

DO 

% 

Ise 

er 

Description 

Rate 

Size 

% 

Good 

Cash Value 

EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR. 

[ NO ACCESS TO 

Ee 

ie 

Fencing: Wire Mesh, 

#11 

3.55 

100 

20 

71 

INTERIOR DUE 

TO A NOTE PLACED ON 

THE DOOR 

cred 

Total Estimated Land Improvements True Cash Value 

= 

71 

STATING THAT 

THE RESIDENTS WERE SICK, 

X 

(Gas 

PACKET 

OF SUPPOSED NEEDED REPAIRS 

k 

Curb 

FORWARDED) .EXTERIOR CONDITION 

IS 

"FAIR". 

X 

IStreet Lights 

FAIR ROOF, 

OLDER WINDOWS, 

OLDER WCP, 

FAIR 

|X 

[Standard Utilities 

SOFFITS AND TRIM. 

NO ACCESS 

TO REAR 

OF 

Underground Utils. 

HOUSE. EJK 

& AT 

Topography of 

- 

Site 

i 

X 

[Tevel 

: 

Rolling 

X 

[Low 

Bigh 

Landscaped 

Swamp 

Wooded 

Pond 

Waterfront 

Ravine 

Wetland 

— 

. 

Flood Plain 

Year 

Land 

Building 

Assessed 

Board 

of| 

Tribunal/ 

Taxable 

Value 

Value 

Value 

Review 

Other 

Value 

Who 

When 

What 

2026 

o 

149,400 

149,400 

149,400s8 

EJK 07/09/2025 FIELD REVI 

[2025 

0 

0 

0 

211,400A| 

211,4008 

e Equalizer. 

Copyright 

(c) 

1999 

- 2009.ikG 

05/20/2025 DESKTOP RE [5537 

pi) 

0 

[ 

0 

Licensed 

To: 

{ity 

of 

Detroit, 

County 

of 

AT 

10/17/2024 

DESKTOP 

RE 

Wayne, 

Michigan 

. 

2023 

0 

0 

0 

0 

*** 

Information Herein deemed reliable 

but 

not guaranteed***

Page 4

Residential Building 

1 

of 

1 

Parcel Number: 

27250130. 

Printed 

on 

10/29/2025 

{ 

Building 

Type 

{3) 

Roof 

{cont.) 

(11) 

Heating/Cooling 

(15) 

Built~ins 

| 

(15) 

Fireplaces 

{16) 

Porches/Decks | 

(17) 

Garage 

¥X 

|Single 

Family 

Eavestrough 

X 

lGas 

1011 

Elec. 

Appliance Allow. 

1 

Interior 

1 Story 

|ArealType 

Year Built: 

Mobile Home, 

Insulation 

Wood 

[coal 

Steam 

Cook 

Top 

Interior 

2 

Story 

T35WeD 

3 

Story) 

Car Capacity: 

; 

: 

5 

2 

. 

Town Home 

0[Front Overhang 

Forced AIF w/o 

Ducts 

Dishwasher 

2nd/Same 

Stack 

285/WCP 

(1 

Story) 

Class: 

) 

Duplex 

0|0ther Overhang 

N 

Garbage Disposal 

Two Sided 

Exterior: 

A-Frame 

Forced Air w/ Ducts 

Bath Heater 

Exterior 

1 Story 

Brick Ven.: 

(4) 

Interior 

¥ |Forced Hot Water 

Vent 

Fan 

Exterior 

2 Story 

Stone Ven.: 

X 

|Rood 

Frame 

Electric Baseboard 

Hot 

Tub 

Prefab 

1 Story 

Common Wall: 

Drywall 

| 

[Plaster 

Elec. Cell. Radiant 

Unvented Hood 

Prefab 

2 Story 

Foundation: 

Building Style: 

Faneled 

| 

Wood Teg, 

Radiant (in-floor) 

Vented Hood

Page 5

STAT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

25-003056 Extend Default.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

Miriam Idara Archibong, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003056 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default on October 2, 2025, because Petitioner filed the wrong 

petition for the issue under appeal and failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the 

appeal, i.e., March Board of Review (BOR) results.1 Petitioner was required to cure the 

default by filing a Petition for Valuation Appeal and obtain a copy of the BOR results 

from Respondent and submit a copy to the Tribunal within 14 days.2 Petitioner has had 

ample time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though 

the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s 

failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has 

established a history of deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of the case for 

failure to timely comply with this order.3 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file a Petition for Valuation Appeal, (2) file a copy of the BOR results, (3) file 

a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (4) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition shall note the docket number assigned by 

the Tribunal and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the 

assigned docket number as an “Amended Petition.” 

 

The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.4 

 

1 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

2 A list of Tribunal rules and petition forms are available online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

3 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

4 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003056 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 237.5 

 

 

Entered: October 27, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

 

 

 

 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 

5 See also MCL 205.732.

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SC_Order_of_Default_of_Petition.2025-10-02_09-37-37.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within

14 days of the entry of this order.

Furthermore,

Petitioner failed to file the petition on an approved petition form. See TTR 279.

Petitioner must complete and return an appropriate petition for the issue being appealed

within 14 days of the entry of this order. Small Claims answer forms can be found on

our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: October 2, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized

representatives.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

Page 2 of 4

By: Tribunal Clerk

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within

14 days of the entry of this order.

Furthermore,

Petitioner failed to file the petition on an approved petition form. See TTR 279.

Petitioner must complete and return an appropriate petition for the issue being appealed

within 14 days of the entry of this order. Small Claims answer forms can be found on

our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: October 2, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized

representatives.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

Page 4 of 4

By: Tribunal Clerk

ii “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

02._Property_Tax_Appeal_Petition_Form_Principal_Residence_Qualified_Agricultural_Exemption.347b4f52-fbec-4775-b491-49de59a8f624.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION

MOAHR DOCKET NO.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Notice of Denial or

Board of Review Decision) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be placed in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual

First Name

Miriam

M.I.

Idara

Last Name/Company Name

Archibong

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

662 Van Dyke

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48214

Telephone Number

404-484-5609

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

marchibong@gmail.com

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Section 3: Subject Property Information

Parcel Identification Number:

17009157

How many parcels are you appealing?

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? If yes, use the attached multiple parcel

form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-

contiguous or non-adjoining parcels or you will be defaulted.

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) (If multiple, list first property’s address)

662 Van Dyke Street

Detroit

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48214

Taxing Authority:

City of Detroit (Wayne)

County:

Wayne

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

Section 4: Check which of the following you are appealing

Principal Residence Exemption

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

My home was purchased for $396,000 in March 2024, after being listed for sale for several years. Less than a year later, the City appraised the property at $557,600,

despite the highest active comparable duplex listing in West Village being $258,000—fully renovated.

Average Sale Price in West Village: $162,000

Average Income in West Village: $54,000

ECF Disparity: The ECF applied to West Village is significantly higher than that of neighboring Indian Village, a more affluent area with higher average incomes and

more stable housing stock.

This disparity suggests an arbitrary and inflated valuation methodology that fails to reflect actual market conditions for duplex properties in West Village.

Functional Obsolescence and Deferred Maintenance

Petitioner’s property suffers from extensive physical and functional deficiencies that materially reduce its market value:

Structural Issues: Rotten front and back decks, sagging floors, failing exterior brick mortar

Systems Deficiencies: Knob-and-tube wiring (incompatible with modern appliances and A/C), failing plumbing system (raw sewage backup), asbestos in basement

piping

Environmental Hazards: Mold from water damage, deteriorated window sills

Lack of Amenities: No driveway, which affects marketability

Estimated cost of repairs exceeds $100,000, and in its current condition, the property would not sell for more than $300,000.

Under MCL 211.27(1), the true cash value must reflect the property’s actual condition—not hypothetical or income-generating potential.

Improper Consideration by March Review Board

During the MRB hearing, Petitioner was asked whether she had a renter. Upon confirming that she did, the vice-chair abruptly moved to reduce the assessed value

only slightly—from $278,800 to $217,900, still over $40,000 more than the purchase price.

This decision was based on speculative income potential rather than market value, violating Michigan’s assessment standards. Rental income is not a valid basis for

assessing residential property unless classified as income-producing commercial real estate.

In July of 2025, the City of Detroit appraiser stated they would need to come inside my home to determine if the assessed value is correct. On the appointed day, due

to illness, I was unable to accommodate the in-home inspection due to illness. I left a detailed description of the exterior, structural damage to my home and invited

the appraiser to walk around the house for a visual inspection. It is my understanding that the appraiser refused to conduct an exterior inspection of my home. If they

had followed my instructions, they would have seen the obvious structural damage in the front and back of my home. The city of Detroit does not routinely conduct

in-home inspections as part of the property appraisal process. Instead, the properties are view from the street and the value determined in that manner. As a result, the

lack of an in-home inspection is immaterial to the questions of whether or not the value assessed to my home is correct. Further, the City of Detroit's Ombudsman

came to our West Village community meeting in June, and announced that the City would reevaluate the calculation of the ECF for West Village, largely because of

the number of residents who brought to the City's attention the disparity in the ECF from neighborhood to neighborhood.

Conclusion and Relief Requested

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal:

Reduce the assessed value to reflect the property’s true cash value in its current, as-is condition.

Correct the ECF application to align with comparable neighborhoods and property types.

Disregard improper considerations such as rental income in determining valuation.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

List the year(s) denied:

2025

Indicate who denied the exemption under appeal:

Local Unit

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SC_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2025-10-02_09-33-14.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Miriam Idara Archibong,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003056

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____